XviD-1.0-RC3?

[Worf]

Hi to all,
and a big thanks to developper of XVid for it's work.

One question:
Have you an estimation of a date of release of XviD-1.0-RC3, not precisely but it's near to a weak or more. Please, dont think that i want to push you to release XviD-1.0-RC3. Or may be you not have an estimation (too early).

Again, great job guys. ;)

Regard Worf

PS: Sorry for my bad english

[atreya2011]

From the XviD FAQ
The developers of XviD are just ordinary people, who happen to enjoy writing code for video compression. The developers work on XviD in their spare time, for no compensation other than the fun of doing it and the occasional 'thank you'. If you wonder why XviD isn't perfect, or bugs sometimes appear without immediate fixes, it's because the developers are normal people and cannot commit their lives to the project. They're all volunteers, and you should remember this when asking them questions or requesting features


And May the FourCC Be With You :p

[alexnoe]

PS: Sorry for my bad englishDon't write in klingon! :p
Or may be you not have an estimation (too early).Companies like Ahead make fools of themselves by announcing hilarious release dates for some stuff....4 weeks after that date, they release one big bug....this is not what people developing stuff in their free time do :D

[Neo Neko]

Who said there was gonna be an RC3 anyway? They might do something scarry or zany like jumping straight to 1.0!!! :D :p

[sdsalsero]

They might do something scarry or zany like jumping straight to 1.0!!! God, I hope not. I've had more problems with RC1 and RC2 , now I just use 'beta3'. I think they need to keep doing Release Candidates until they get one that no one has problems with. Then that one gets renamed as 'Final'.

[sysKin]

Originally posted by sdsalsero
God, I hope not. I've had more problems with RC1 and RC2 , now I just use 'beta3'. I think they need to keep doing Release Candidates until they get one that no one has problems with. Then that one gets renamed as 'Final'. OK this pissed me off. You say you have problems with RC2 **NOW** ????? Are you kidding? It better be a joke, because if you really have problems and are hiding them, you are the worst, most lazy and most unresposible user in the world.

[dragongodz]

"It better be a joke, because if you really have problems and are hiding them, you are the worst, most lazy and most unresposible user in the world."
Syskin you have been at this long enough to know at least 95% of common users do exactly that. they see and use beta versions but say nothing because its a beta. even though the whole point is for problems to be found before stable release. :)

asking for people to specifically test shows how bad this can be. i asked for people to test DVDx betas and got heaps of responses so i picked a dozen that i knew had been around(such as on the DVDx forum) for awhile. guess what ? 3 replied with results and then 1 after that said he couldnt anymore.

the majority of people like to use software but not want to put in the effort to make it better. this sucks true but you should not really be surprised(angry yes, it pisses me off too).

[Sharktooth]

Originally posted by sdsalsero
God, I hope not. I've had more problems with RC1 and RC2 , now I just use 'beta3'. I think they need to keep doing Release Candidates until they get one that no one has problems with. Then that one gets renamed as 'Final'.
Is it a joke? You should tell the devs what are those "more problems" with RC2. But i warn you they better have to be REAL problems...

[ssjkakaroto]

it's more like a SINGLE problem but he actually did post about it :p :
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=441967#post441967
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=442550#post442550
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=445522#post445522

[Teegedeck]

I admire sysKin for keeping style even when he's most annoyed.

[Koepi]

Ah, the problem which could be described as:

"Setting Aspect Ration in zoomplayer doesn't work with xvid rc 1+2"

I wonder why noone else is reporting this. I could think of a reason which will already be solved in the next release (if it is what I think), but then, we need a little confirmation that this isn't a problem related to the system setup but within xvid :-/

Regards
Koepi

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Koepi
..."Setting Aspect Ration in zoomplayer doesn't work with xvid rc 1+2"

I wonder why noone else is reporting this. I could think of a reason which will already be solved in the next release (if it is what I think), but then, we need a little confirmation that this isn't a problem related to the system setup but within xvid :-/ I don't know if this helps, but I've found as long as I have the correct version of Nero's NeVideo.ax filter installed, all my anamorphically encoded XviD files (muxed into an MP4 container) open up correctly in Microsoft's Windows Media Player!

I wonder if tomorrows release of Nero's Vision Express will still work?

Cheers

[BoNz1]

Personally, I would like to see XviD 1.0 tomorrow, in my opinion it could have been released long time ago and maybe should have been. Although I guess you could argue either way. It is just a little painful to see development sort of stagnant ATM because it is mostly stable and people are having problems with the decoder and WMP9 or other things like this. Don't get me wrong this stuff is important and I am not trying to insult anyone's work but it is less important than having a encoder which works really nicely like XviD does right now. I would rather it is released so other things could be addressed to make XviD even better. Just my opinion and I wouldn't be surprised if people disagreed.

[SeeMoreDigital]

For the stuff that I do I can't find any fault with the current XviD build. In fact, decoder wise, it works far better than DivX's - even with DivX encoded files!

Yesterday, I installed DivX's new 'installer' version of their codec (complete with new decoder). And bugger me if I could not get any of my DivX files to run properly!

Ok I'm using a slow 800MHz P3 PC - but XviD's decoder plays them perfectly...

Release XviD now I say!

Cheers

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by sdsalsero
God, I hope not. I've had more problems with RC1 and RC2 , now I just use 'beta3'. I think they need to keep doing Release Candidates until they get one that no one has problems with. Then that one gets renamed as 'Final'.

If that was the case there would never have ever been a 1.0 version of any software at any time in the entire history of software save for the most basic of software. I think most calculator programs are fairly bug free.(IE MS. Calc, or KCalc) But the more complex software gets and the more it reliles on other software; it makes removing all the bugs and providing perfect functionality well neigh impossible. And this means that there will never be a bug free version of Windows or even a reasonably secure versions. :p

[Gusto]

I've found the following bugs on the decoder's side:

- After enabling Luma Deblocking the video suddently slows down and in about 1-2 seconds the media player window closes. This doesn't happen when enabling chroma deblock or film effect. Also it doesn't take place when playing rendered media file in graphedit.

- After switching to RGB24 colorspace, the next time I try to access decoder's filter parameters via media player's Properties, the XVID filter isn't listed in "Advanced" tab.

I used:
- VirtualDub 1.5.1 for encoding (single pass, qpel, 2-bvops, packed bitstream, closed gov)
- MediaPlayer 6.4.09.1128 as a player
- Koepi's build: XviD-1.0-RC3-29022004.exe

Best,

[sysKin]

Originally posted by Gusto
- After enabling Luma Deblocking the video suddently slows down and in about 1-2 seconds the media player window closes. This doesn't happen when enabling chroma deblock or film effect. Also it doesn't take place when playing rendered media file in graphedit.Will check that. I think I had some problems with mplayer2.exe when I last tried it. As I said, will check.
- After switching to RGB24 colorspace, the next time I try to access decoder's filter parameters via media player's Properties, the XVID filter isn't listed in "Advanced" tab.In that case, it's probably not used. Many video cards will reject rgb24 overlays, so it might be the reason. Try graphedit to find out what's going on - in you can't connect xvid-rgb24 with overlay mixer, you have the answer.

Thanks for that,
Radek

[Gusto]

Originally posted by sysKin
In that case, it's probably not used. Many video cards will reject rgb24 overlays, so it might be the reason. Try graphedit to find out what's going on - if you can't connect xvid-rgb24 with overlay mixer, you have the answer.You were right, with rgb24 it's not used :)

Best,

[Soulhunter]

Question: How big where the changes in ME from dev3 builds till now... :rolleyes:

Wont make the devs angry, but somehow I get more n' more the feeling that all newer builds have a worse ME !!!

More problems with tearing / floating walls... :(

Or isnt this ME related... :confused:

Btw, what ME does FFVFW use ???


Bye

[crusty]

"Setting Aspect Ration in zoomplayer doesn't work with xvid rc 1+2"
I'll see tonight if I can verify if this happens with RC3 on my pc..I haven't messed with Aspect Ratios before but I can try.
It is just a little painful to see development sort of stagnant ATM because it is mostly stable and people are having problems with the decoder and WMP9 or other things like this. Don't get me wrong this stuff is important and I am not trying to insult anyone's work but it is less important than having a encoder which works really nicely like XviD does right now.
I don't think development is stagnant....actually I think it's quite lively right now. The bugs and feedbacks, and reports of fixes maybe aren't major or really serious, but clearly alot of work has been done the last few months. Development towards stability and bug-freeness in stead of new features is what separates XviD lightyears from the buggy stuff corporations like M$ make. And we DO have 'an encoder which works really nicely like XviD does right now', namely...XviD. ;)
Yesterday, I installed DivX's new 'installer' version of their codec (complete with new decoder). And bugger me if I could not get any of my DivX files to run properly!

Ok I'm using a slow 800MHz P3 PC - but XviD's decoder plays them perfectly...
Hmmm...maybe I should give DivX the boot as well...

I'll see if I can replicate some of Gusto's issues..


More problems with tearing / floating walls...
Had no issues with both RC2 and RC3 here..if there is any floating it's because I use 7 different filters in my avs...

[Soulhunter]

Originally posted by crusty
Had no issues with both RC2 and RC3 here..if there is any floating it's because I use 7 different filters in my avs... For me its even more visible when using no filters... :D

Its caused through grain/noise in the source !!!

Using denoisers reduced the effect for me...

Ive redone some old dev.3 encodes with v1 beta/RCx (same settings/sources). But somehow the dev.3 encodes look better !!!

OK, they are a bit bigger too... :rolleyes:

But they really show much less movement in uniform background !!!


Bye

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by crusty
...Hmmm...maybe I should give DivX the boot as well... It would be nice to get feedback from somebody else.

As somebody who likes to use each codecs very own DS filter to play back their own content, I find it very annoying when another codecs DS filter does a better job!

I guess many users here use FFDshow to decode all there Mpeg4 content and as a result don't understand the true situation with DivX - and low processor speed PC's!

Even registering DivX's new DS filter manually has not helped me!

Cheers

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
It would be nice to get feedback from somebody else.

As somebody who likes to use each codecs very own DS filter to play back their own content, I find it very annoying when another codecs DS filter does a better job!

Why should that be annoying? It is the perk of an open interroperable standard. Which means that even if someone stops developing their product you are usually not left behind. I use the decoder that works for me. Default decoder be damned. Which means that in the past that I have always used ffdshow. Unfortunatly ffdshow has stagnated a bit and does not implement my favorite new feature. Mainly Aspect Ratio correction via PAR. So 3ivx has been making inroads to my favorite decoders list under Windows. Under non-Windows OS though libavcodec and FFmpeg are the best!

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital


I guess many users here use FFDshow to decode all there Mpeg4 content and as a result don't understand the true situation with DivX - and low processor speed PC's!

I would not say that. It is due to that fact that many people are now using ffdshow or other libavcodec based solutions.

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital


Even registering DivX's new DS filter manually has not helped me!

Cheers

Your answer is simple. Try a different decoder. Why feel the need to stick with the default decoder if it is so lacking? That is what is good about open standards and implementations. Users are not locked in and can go where they want to enjoy whatever features they want. It's great!

[BoNz1]

Originally posted by crusty
I don't think development is stagnant....actually I think it's quite lively right now. The bugs and feedbacks, and reports of fixes maybe aren't major or really serious, but clearly alot of work has been done the last few months. Development towards stability and bug-freeness in stead of new features is what separates XviD lightyears from the buggy stuff corporations like M$ make. And we DO have 'an encoder which works really nicely like XviD does right now', namely...XviD. ;)


Yes, stagnant is clearly the wrong word, maybe slow yes. Stagnant carries with it images of dying so thats definitely not true. I just am sort of chomping at the bit so to speak to see something new and not bugfixes to the decoder which I don't even use. Thats all ;). And yes I agree that these things are important to have a rock solid stable XviD 1.0.

Originally posted by Soulhunter
For me its even more visible when using no filters...

Its caused through grain/noise in the source !!!

Using denoisers reduced the effect for me...

Ive redone some old dev.3 encodes with v1 beta/RCx (same settings/sources). But somehow the dev.3 encodes look better !!!

OK, they are a bit bigger too...

But they really show much less movement in uniform background !!!

I have brought this up before with the sysKin and the other developers on IRC once or twice. I would be nice if this could get fixed. As I see it, and I don't really know much about ME but in order for these backgrounds to look more static there should be more macroblocks coded as skipped. In my opinion this problem is less of a problem than in dev-api-3 but it is still there. I think this is one only a very few of problems with XviD right now. I think sysKin was talking on IRC about getting more macroblocks to skip and also a more efficient ME for b-frames. So this should help in this respect. Of course all these things will be after 1.0 I am sure, :).